B.R.SHARMA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner, who was an employee of respondent No. 1-Syndicate Bank, impugns the suspension order dated 8.9.1994 and the orders of the departmental authorities; disciplinary authority dated 6.7.1998 and appellate authority dated 31.8.1998; imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner.

(2.) The basic facts forming the chargesheet against the petitioner were that he alongwith about 25 odd officers organized an unauthorized assembly of officers inside the premises of zonal office near the cabin of Mr. Prem Maini, the then Deputy General Manager (DGM) of Delhi. At about 6.00 P.M. the petitioner along with others forcibly entered into the cabin of Mr. Maini and engaged in disorderly behavior with Mr. Maini. Even threats were given to Mr. Maini and Mr. Maini was unlawfully prevented from leaving his cabin in the office. When Mr. Maini left the office with police escort, the petitioner with his supporters, followed Mr. Maini by shouting slogans and the petitioner at that stage rushed towards car of Mr. Maini with an intention to physically assault him. The original assembly was unlawful because no permission was given to the petitioner and the other officers to come to the zonal office or to meet Mr. Maini. There are also allegations against the petitioner of abusing Mr. Maini and also physically preventing Mr. Maini from leaving his cabin in the office. Petitioner was therefore suspended vide order dated 8.9.1994. Chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 12.10.1994. Enquiry proceedings were thereafter conducted by the enquiry officer who was appointed on 7.12.1994. Enquiry proceedings culminated with the report of the enquiry officer dated 1.5.1998 holding the petitioner guilty. Disciplinary authority passed its order dated 6.7.1998 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner and which order was upheld by the appellate authority's order dated 31.8.1998.

(3.) Before adverting to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, and the response of the respondent-bank, at the outset, it is necessary to set out the scope of proceedings before a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby orders of departmental authorities are challenged. It is settled law that this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit as an Appellate Court to reappraise the evidence and findings/conclusions of the departmental authorities. This Court can only interfere if the findings of the departmental authorities are perverse or are in violation of the principles of natural justice or the orders of the departmental authorities are against the rule/law.